The federal government asked U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro to toss a
lawsuit filed by five animal advocates last year that claimed the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is unconstitutional.

AETA was lobbied for by a number of agribusinesses, the fur industry and
pharmaceutical companies that have a financial stake in the continued
exploitation of animals and was passed under Bush in 2006 and was intended
to target violent activities, such as attempted bombings at UCLA's primate
research center.

However, the lawsuit, Blum v. Holder, argues that the law goes too far
and the overly broad way it's written could technically cover many legal
activities from leafletting to whistle-blowing. According to the
Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing the group, 'the
language of the AETA covers many First Amendment activities, such as
picketing, boycotts and undercover investigations if they 'interfere' with
an animal enterprise by causing a loss of profits. So in effect, the AETA
silences the peaceful and lawful protest activities of animal and
environmental advocates.'

An attorney for the Justice Department argued that the law isn't directed
at constitutionally protected activities, such as holding peaceful protests,
reports
Businessweek, but the activists disagree and believe it has had a more
chilling effect than was intended and has left them afraid to speak out for
fear of being prosecuted as terrorists.

'The fear of prosecution is not hypothetical and the chill is not
hypothetical,'
said Alex Reinert, a lawyer for the group.

The law hasn't been used much, but it has been used. The
SHAC7, a group of six
activists, were convicted of multiple federal felonies under the former
Federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 for campaigning to shut
down the notorious animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. They didn't
break anything, steal anything or hurt anyone.

Their crime? Making a website and disseminating information about
documented cruelty that was being hidden behind closed doors and
highlighting both legal and illegal activities to help shut it down. They
all received jail time.

In 2009, two activists received jail time for releasing hundreds of
animals from a mink farm.

'The law criminalizes causing damage or loss to the real or personal
property of an animal enterprise,' Rachel Meerpol, a staff attorney at the
center
told the LATimes. 'Because those terms aren't defined, you have to take
them at their common usage. And under common usage, 'personal property'
includes money, includes profits. So that means that the acts can fairly be
read to criminalize anyone who causes a business to lose profits. Activists
from any social movements could be subject to prosecution as terrorists if
their advocacy, if their lawful protest, affects the bottom line of a
business.'

As pointed out by those in opposition to this law, and in the cases of Ag
Gag legislation, there are already laws on the books to protect businesses
and individuals from trespassing and damage.

'I spent years uncovering conditions on foie gras farms and educating the
public about the way ducks and geese are abused,'
said Sarahjane Blum, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. 'I no longer feel free
to speak my mind on these issues out of fear that my advocacy could actually
convince people to stop eating foie gras ' affecting those businesses'
bottom line and turning me into an animal enterprise terrorist.'

These businesses seem less concerned with keeping their properties and
employees safe than they do with keeping what they do out of the public eye.
Undercover investigations that are brought to light by organizations such as
Mercy for Animals and a few of the plaintiffs have a more far-reaching
effect than any property damage ever could and will hopefully change the
hearts and minds of the public.

Leaving this law in place and allowing businesses to hide their actions
behind the war on terror sets a dangerous precedent for targeting any
activist who wants to rock the boat and stifles the free-market of ideas'one
of the very things the Constitution is intended to protect.